AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS application is filed by the original complainant against order dated 12.5.2004 of the District Forum Thane.
WE do not propose to have detailed advertance to the factual aspect, for that matter merit or de-merits involved herein, the complaint is pending final disposal on the file of the District Forum Thane and its present status is that it is part-heard matter. It is noticed that the District Forum has thought it necessary to have oral evidence of the parties. It is noticed that the parties have filed the pleadings in the consumer disputes including affidavits in support of evidence. It is noticed that the complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim of an expert one Dr. Brian Cutino on 5.8.2003 which is after the hearing of the complaint and evidence of the complainant was concluded.
Then Dr. Brian Cutino also stepped into the witness box and he was also examined and cross examined by the O.P. This was concluded on 12.5.2004. It is at that stage the complainant sought to tender further affidavit of Dr. Cutino and sought his further examination, which the District Forum has declined to allow vide impugned order and hence the revision application.
IN this regard we wish to state that the Forum should control and regulate the conduct of proceedings sop as to avoid protracted hearing and not permitting the parties to improvise its stance and stand as the hearing progresses as it appears to be case herein. Parties cannot be permitted to go on filing its pleading as per sweet will beyond certain stage of the trial. It is necessary that Forum regulates and controls such course, if necessary by firm hand. The District Forum was justified in the circumstances to reject the application filed at the belated stage for which we are in agreement with it. ORDER 1. Application stands rejected. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Revision dismissed.